3 ms·
1) You're taking it too literally 2) It doesn't matter if it's small on the scale of the US if it's big on the scale of individual aquifers
by dralley 3y ago
1) You're taking it too literally
2) It doesn't matter if it's small on the scale of the US if it's big on the scale of individual aquifers
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> taking it too literally They’re straw men. The problem is almost entirely inefficient farming. Bottled water and golf courses don’t move the needle, but they do absorb activist resources. It’s an incredibly effective rhetorical technique in a public sphere that chases shiny range-inducing factoids.
- hedora 3y agoNestle gets its water from all sorts of places, so in theory, the size of their global draw vs the size of individual aquifers shouldn't matter. In practice, it does for some of their processing plants. For instance, in Ontario, they pull water from aquifers that would otherwise go to tribes that have run out of water: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/04/ontario-six-nations-nestle-running-water https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/04/ontario-six-n...
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y agoNot taking it too literally at all. GP obviously wanted to get on their soapbox about The Corporations and they were corrected / called out re the relevance of that particular rant. At a point it’s breaking HN’s rules